Forums | MacLife

Once the US leaves there will be civil war, once again. The people who are part of Karzai's government are people with power in Afghanistan. Warlords, drug barons, general crooks. They fought the Taliban before, and they will fight them again. Various entities will be funding these organizations in an effort to keep the Taliban down. Depending on the factions this could mean funding from the US and other western nations, India, Iran, China, Russia... who knows. Likewise the Taliban will have their sponsors in Pakistan and the Arab world. The Taliban itself could easily splinter into competing groups.

China will most certainly not invade. Afghanistan beat the Soviets, and its well on its way to beating the US and NATO. China would be insane to think that they could succeed where their predecessors failed; and its not like China is big on invasion/occupation in the first place.

Ribtorus wrote:

China wouldn't invade, they would "invest". That's much worse (effective) from a geo-political power point of view. They're there now, only if the west pulls out, they ramp up. China's "fight", if we can call it that, is with Russia and India.

But invest in what? Aside from the opium poppy fields are there any resources in Afghanistan worth investing in? Maybe a tourist industry?

There is, I suppose, the political influence, but being able to control the government over a people largely xenophobic and isolationist seems to be of little benefit to the Chinese or anyone else for that matter. Even the old Soviet Union saw Afghanistan only as a means toward extending the USSR's influence over south-central Asia, specifically the oil-rich countries from Iran westward.

So, essentially what I'm reading is that there really isn't a good reason not to nuke the whole place from orbit. After all, it's the only way to be sure.

Nuking is messy.

OK, so let's recap this thread, so Afghanistan can be talked about:

The "I hate the USA" crowd is calling out past atrocities made by the US and others during previous wars.  The other side, let's just call them the correct side here, (they might not be correct next time) says that both sides in the wars being discussed committed horrific acts of attempted genocide.

Everyone happy now?  Can we go back to the topic at hand?

Last edited by MysticCow (2009-10-18 11:21 am)

Be sure to get your sign laminated. It wears out so quickly otherwise!

Well, if you do it right, it does. IF  you screw up in the execution, it doesn't.

The policy of securing oil, the policy of economic growth by "opening up" new markets, the policy of creating a new need to spend and invest in defense, the policy of creating the illusion of a need for American intervention and control in foreign lands, the policy of showing the UN who is boss, the policy of "rallying the troops" in a sort of cultural revenge on an initially perceived easy target for the pain of 9-11, the policy of the commanding officer getting the guy who tried to kill his father, the policy of religious fanaticism and believing to be waging battle for a deity, the policy of "stay the course" etc etc etc

No one said they had to be "good" policies, but they were policies of one sort or another. And thats all besides the stated policy of securing peace and getting rid of WMD's.

Last edited by StaticAge (2009-10-18 10:46 pm)

What's going on in Afghanistan is a continuation of the "Great Game", with some of the same players, no less

What fascinates me about the whole thing is not the scramble for that region (who controls it, etc), but the lack of real reporting of this scramble.

If it isn't widely reported, is it happening?  The control of information is staggering because the sums and the conflicts of interest are, likewise, staggering.

Just like the "permanent bases" in Iraq are off the public radar, (they might as well not exist for all that's reported), so it is with A'stan. Not mererly bases, but mines, routes, roads, right-of-ways, etc. Sounds boring.

The Soviets carved out routes to kabul partly because that's all they could manage. That's pretty much all we can manage. Kabul was effectively under seige when the Soviets had it. And again, it's under seige. Find someone to talk about that. That's real failure and it's been like that for some time.

Play it safe and stick with the so called controversy over force levels in A'stan; O'Bama vs McChrystal (if such a matchup really existst) is safer copy and an entertaining distraction and it's largely meaningless in terms of the Great Game.

Britain's Afghanistan was about access to India; keeping it to themselves and denying Russia. I don't think Britain was interested in mining from distant lands at that time if the hillsides couldn't be pacified.

ShnickyShnack wrote:

I thought the deal between Washington and Baghdad meant there wouldn't be any long-term bases?

Ribtorus wrote:

Britain's Afghanistan was about access to India; keeping it to themselves and denying Russia. I don't think Britain was interested in mining from distant lands at that time if the hillsides couldn't be pacified.

But China is. There's enough there to perhaps be a reason to stay, or be a strong one of several. (I saw this days ago, but couldn't post it then).

Resource-hungry China heads to Afghanistan
Wednesday, October 14, 2009 2:01 PM
By Adrienne Mong, NBC News Producer

LOGAR PROVINCE, Afghanistan – Early on a recent morning we were driving to a shoot when an astonishing sight loomed up ahead of us. NBC News cameraman Steve O’Neill exclaimed, "It’s the Great Wall of China!"

The "wall" snaking before us, easily several miles long, was made of Hesco sandbags and circled a camp for Chinese workers. Though not permitted to enter the site, we could see rows and rows of neat white buildings with blue trim; the temporary structures looked exactly like the migrant workers’ housing at construction sites all across China.

Size apart, it was all somewhat unremarkable, except for the fact that we were in eastern Afghanistan.

The Chinese workers – several hundred technicians – are part of a multibillion-dollar Chinese investment in Afghanistan’s largest-ever infrastructure project, the Aynak copper mine.

Discovered in 1974 but virtually dormant since the start of the Soviet War in 1979, the Aynak mine is believed to contain the world’s second-largest untapped copper deposits and could propel Afghanistan into the ranks of the world’s top 15 copper producers. 

After wooing Afghan officials from as early as 2001, a Chinese mainland joint venture finally won the rights in 2007 to develop the site over 30 years. So far, it has sunk more than $4 billion into the project. 

The joint venture – between majority partner China Metallurgical Group Corp. and Jiangxi Copper Corp. – expects production to begin by the end of 2011 with an initial annual output of 180,000 tons of copper that will eventually grow to 320,000 tons. China will have rights to half that output, which it needs to fuel its own massive economic growth.

But the mine is just outside Kabul, in Logar Province, where there has been heightened insurgent activity. Some 1,500 Afghan police are stationed on site with a new police barracks in the works. And although they say they are not attached to the project, the U.S. Army’s 10th Mountain Division occasionally sends units to patrol the area. China – of course, not being a member of NATO – has no troops on the ground in Afghanistan.

It’s this set-up that’s feeding a percolating debate about China’s role in Afghanistan.

America fights, China profits?
..

Ritter says the bottom line is: "We need a policy on developing mines and minerals and oil and gas in Afghanistan. Otherwise, it will be dominated by Chinese, who are wired to the Iranians through their oil investments, and the Pakistanis, because of the China-India competition."

It all sounds like some postmodernist version of the Great Game, with the players this time being the U.S., China and India instead of Britain, Russia and France.

ShnickyShnack wrote:

I thought the deal between Washington and Baghdad meant there wouldn't be any long-term bases?

My tea just squirted out of my nose. Thanks.